Featured The Grammar of 1 Jn. 5:1 is repetitive

Greek Tim laid out the grammatical structure of 1 Jn. 5:1 in connection with the present participle "believeth" with the Perfect tense "born of God" showing the causality between new birth and faith and none of his opponents could demonstrate any error in its exegesis.

Instead, his oppoents constantly argued that he did not deal with the immediate context (but still could no offer any other explanation for the grammar).

However, this same Greek structure is repeated throughout the context of the epistle of first John:

1Jo 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness (present tense participle) is born (perfect tense verb) of him.

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born (Perfect tense verb) of God doth (Present tense verb) not commit sin; for his seed remaineth (present tense) in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born (perfect tense verb) of God.

1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth (present tense participle) is born (perfect tense verb) of God, and knoweth God.

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth (present tense participle) that Jesus is the Christ is born (perfect tense verb) of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born (perfect tense verb) of God overcometh (present tense verb) the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is born (perfect tense verb)of God sinneth (present tense verb) not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

So the grammar in 1 John 5:1 is not an exception to the context but the rule of the context as in EVERY CASE where new birth is mentioned the same grammar is used proving this is John's view that the new birth is causual to not merely faith, but to doing righteousness, loving God and man, overcoming sin, overcoming the world. Now who can argue that the new birth is not causual to overcoming sin? Not causual to overcoming the world?

So the grammar of first John 5:1 is not exceptional and restricted to one verse or one instance concerning the new birth, but the rule is consistently used throughout the epistle of first John in EVERY INSTANCE the new birth is mentioned by John. That is a contextual fact that cannot be denied. Hence, context verifies this use in 1 Jn. 5:1 and this grammatical demand that the new birth is causual to not only faith, but to loving God, to doing righteousness, to overcoming sin, and overcoming the world.

So now Greek Tim's opponents cannot say that the grammar of 1 Jn. 5:1 is not contextual as it is repeated in EVERY INSTANCE where John speaks of the new birth throughout this epistle. Now, his opponents are FORCED to go outside the entire context of the entire epistle of 1 John to do what? Overturn John's own repeated grammar consistently used throughout this epistle in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where the new birth is mentioned.

Again, the grammar speaks for itself or can anyone prove otherwise? If you don't know Greek then it is best to keep your mouth shut instead of opening it and proclaiming your ignorance.

 

Ok, this is a better response than what I have read. However, the response is both grammatically and theologically in error: Your argument reads thus:

One example is John 3:18. "Whoever believes (present participle) in him is not condemned (perfect tense)." Believing removes, and hence, precedes, not being condemned. Expressed positively: "Whoever believes (present participle) in him is has been justified (perfect tense). Believing is not the result of having been justified; rather, faith precedes justification. 30


Whoever said this is ignoring two grammatical factors. First, the perfect tense completed action condition of condemnation did in fact precede believing as John claims that prior to faith they were "condemned already" (Jn. 3:18). I guess that is why he ommitted the other part of the verse as it refuted his own argument. So the perfect tense is perfectly consistent with its use in 1 John 5:1.

Second, the negative particle "not" negates this causal condition at the point of faith whereas no negative particle can be found in 1 Jn. 5:1 and thus the causual relationship is not negated. If the negative particle was dropped from this text then condemnation would be the causal relationship to faith but the negative particle negates this condition at the point of faith.




A second example is 1 John 5:10 "Whoever does not believe (present participle) God has made (perfect tense) him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son." The perfect tense, making God a liar, is a result of the present participle, not believing.

Again, the person making this argument is misunderstanding and misinterpreting this text and its grammar.

The text does not say God is a liar or God has become a liar. This text has nothing to do with the factual condition of God except in the mind of this man. In the mind of this man, God stands in a completed condition of being a liar and that is the cause of his unbelief. That is true in regard to unbelievers. They continue in unbelief because in their own mind they have made God to be a liar.

 

Neither GreekTim nor I argued for any kind of chronological order. We realize chronologically it is identical or simeltaneous action and so did the KJV translators as they used the present tense "IS born." The greek grammar only provides for logical cause and effect as in the bullet and hole analogy rather than a chronological order.

Whoever is writing this has either a superficial understanding of Greek grammar or is intentionally ommitting grammatical facts.

 

My argument precisely!

He ignores the grammatical weight of the negative particle which negates the perfect tense condition. Rather he argues as though the negative particle is not there. A negative particle NEGATES something and he simply refuses to acknowledge what it negates - it negates the perfect tense verb action.

First, there is no "might" as the grammar demands that the new birth does in fact at the very minimum LOGICALLY precede faith as causual. Nobody has argued it does so chronologically.

Second, the only "thin ice" is to argue it does not - that is "thin ice" as there is NO BASIS to make that argument grammatically.

 

Every single solitary use of gennao in the book of first John precludes the possibility of faith precedes regeneration! He listed them all and acknowledged that the very same grammatical structure is found with EVERY INSTANCE, every case where gennao is found. He admitted already that such a consistent grammatical use by John provides a basis to believe that the new birth at very minimum might precede faith. He could find NOTHING in the epistle to suggest the opposite! His position is not only "thin ice" but NO ICE at all!!

 

No such example can be found in the first epistle of John - none! In every instance where new birth is found it is always in the very same grammatical perfect tense structure - always!

Again, no one is arguing for a time gap but for a cause and consequence relationship. This argument is moot! The grammar demands new birth is causal to faith, to overcoming the world, to overcoming sin, to loving God, to doing righteousness and he admits all except the first and yet the very same grammatical structure is found in every case.

This is an outright LIE! John never substitutes the term "Christian" for "is born" or for "justified" or any other theological aspect of salvation.

More absolute nonsense as "born" and "justified" are not synonomous terms and neither are synonomous with "Christian." One is not a Christian until AFTER they are born of God and AFTER they are justified. Hence, new birth is causual to being a "Christian."

 

BALONEY! EVERY SINGLE USE of "born" in this epistle uses the very same grammatical structure and proves the very same thing. Your writer quoted those uses and admitted it was the very same structure and admitted it provided the very same basis for that grammatical argument - read him again!

 

He is ignorant of the very texts he is using above to prove his assertion. I have pointed out the negative particle in the first text which HE IGNORES and pointed out the structure of the second text does not contradict the structure in 1 John 5:1 at all. It is your "comprehension" reading skills that are lacking as you probably didn't even read my response - read it.

 

Inspector, his admission that it is never used does not stop him from making arguments as though it were used by John, read what he says after that admission and I quote:

The phrase, "born of God" can be substituted with the term, "Christian." Look at how the emphasis shifts.

Everyone who practices righteousness is a Christian. (2:29)
No one born of God keeps on sinning because he is a Christian. (3:9)
Whoever loves is a Christian. (4:7)
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a Christian. (5:1)

 

I never said he agreed with my position or that his conclusion agreed with my position. I spoke directly of his admission that every use of "is born" in the epistle agreed with my position and I quote:


Most Calvinists also resort to the use of the Greek word, gennaô, to be born. They teach that whenever this word occurs as a perfect verb, it produces a range of results expressed as present participles, of which faith is one.
"If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him" (2:29).
"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God" (3:9).
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (4:7).
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whomever has been born of him" (5:1).

We can make two observations from these texts. First, in every instance the verb "born" (gennaô) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that precedes the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving, or believing.

Second, no evangelical would say that before we are born again we must practice righteousness, for such a view would teach works-righteousness. Nor would we say that first we avoid sinning, and then are born of God, for such a view would suggest that human works cause us to be born of God. Nor would we say that first we show great love for God, and then he causes us to be born again. No, it is clear that practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, and loving are all the consequences or results of the new birth. But if this is the case, then we must interpret 1 John 5:1 in the same way, for the structure of the verse is the same as we find in the texts about practicing righteousness (1 John 2:29), avoiding sin (3:9), and loving God (4:7). It follows, then, that 1 John 5:1 teaches that first God grants us new life and then we believe Jesus is the Christ. 31

If this were the only passage in Scripture that references regeneration and faith, I would favor the later reformed position,

And take note that he did not deny but asserted that the same grammatical structure was used in every case where "is born" is found in this epistle. Of course he does not agree but he does not provide any sound grammatical responses either as I have shown.


The only way you can win this debate is to mispresent what I have said (which you have done in this post) and ignore the grammatical facts which your writer has done.

 

Ok! but his argument is still an outright lie based upon his own admission that John NEVER does WHAT HE IS DOING, thus what HE IS DOING is misrepresenting John according to his own admission. Willful Misrpesentation is LYING!

 

I never argued that it does! I simply pointed out that you misrepresented my post as you claimed he never supported what I said in that post he did support. He did support exactly what I said he supported and I quoted it to prove it. Now you admit he does support exactly what I said he supported and thus admit your response to my post was erroneous.

his own ignorance of grammar. His arguments were thoroughly repudiated as he simply ignored grammatical and contextual facts. I pointed out those facts and neither you or anyone else has been able to respond to those arguments. Your only response is merely reassertion of his errors without any response to the evidences I presented to prove his errors.